Kim Dotcom has this week been demoing his latest tech venture, which goes by the name of K.im and utilises an application called Bitcache.

Dotcom, of course, is still fighting extradition to the US where he faces criminal charges for copyright infringement relating to his long defunct former business MegaUpload.

Since the original MegaUpload file-transfer platform was shut down by the US authorities in 2012, Doctom has launched and then stepped back from two other related business ventures, file-transfer service Mega and direct-to-fan platform Baboom.

The new project – which began life under the name MegaUpload 2.0 – sort of combines those two concepts, allowing creators to digitally transfer their content to third parties in return for a micropayment enabled by Bitcache.

Though K.im won’t actually host any content itself, and will instead integrate with other file-transfer and cloud-hosting services like Dropbox and Google Drive.

Talking about the new business, Dotcom told Torrentfreak: “I’m working for both sides. For the copyright holders and also for the people who what to pay for content but have been geo-blocked and then are forced to download for free”.

Of course, like MegaUpload, the new service could be utilised by people illegally distributing other people’s content, only this time not only would they be making music and movie files available without licence, they would be directly earning from their copyright infringement.

Though Dotcom says K.im will include a system akin to YouTube’s Content ID so that rights owners can control third party distribution of their content and, if they wish, choose to monetise that third party delivery and take the money themselves.

Which is nice. Except the entertainment industry has something of a love/hate relationship with YouTube’s Content ID, so that element of the new service won’t necessarily placate the record companies and movie studios who are already suing Dotcom over the old MegaUpload business.

But, unperturbed, Dotcom adds that his new technology “is the holy grail of copyright enforcement. It is my gift to Hollywood, the movie studios, and everyone else”.

America’s Department Of Justice has asked the US Supreme Court to ignore the latest appeal by MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom, who is still trying to get reconnected to the millions that were seized when his sometimes controversial former business was shut down by the feds in 2012.

As much previously reported, the US authorities shutdown MegaUpload on copyright infringement grounds, requesting that Dotcom and a number of his then colleagues in New Zealand, and elsewhere, be arrested, while also seizing most of the company’s assets. Efforts to extradite Dotcom to the US to face various charges in a US courtroom are still ongoing, while there have been an assortment of other legal wranglings in relation to MegaUpload in both America and New Zealand.

Among them have been Dotcom’s efforts to reclaim some or all of the assets and funds seized back in 2012. Last year the US Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeal backed a lower court ruling saying that Dotcom should not be reconnected to those assets, mainly because they consider the former MegaUpload chief a fugitive. But Dotcom’s lawyer hit back at that argument, saying that his client wasn’t a ‘fugitive’, but was exercising his legal right to fight extradition to the US.

To that end, Dotcom’s lawyer Ira Rothken announced he’d take the matter to the US Supreme Court. He told Reuters at the time: “This opinion has the effect of eviscerating Kim Dotcom’s treaty rights by saying if you lawfully oppose extradition in New Zealand, the US will still call you a fugitive and take all of your assets. We think it’s American imperialism at its best, and we’re hoping the Supreme Court will see it for what it is, and reverse it”.

Dotcom’s petition was filed with the Supreme Court in April. Earlier this month the US Department Of Justice lodged its response, arguing that it is, in fact, appropriate to define the former MegaUpload chiefs as “fugitives”, and that doing so is in line with both the wishes of Congress when writing the laws that are relevant here, and also past judgements in similar cases in America.

After outlining its arguments in some detail, the US government’s filing then had a very short conclusion. That: “The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied”. Which basically means it wants the Supreme Court to tell Dotcom and his legal team to go away. We await the Supreme Court’s response.

The ongoing debate over whether or not we should put MegaUpload’s Kim Dotcom in the big pile with all the other fugitives continues. The founder of the often controversial one-time file-transfer platform is now petitioning the US Supreme Court over his classification as a ‘fugitive’ by the American authorities. It’s an important classification, because it’s being used to stop Dotcom from reclaiming millions in seized assets and funds.

As much previously reported, in early 2012 the US authorities shutdown MegaUpload on copyright infringement grounds, requesting that Dotcom and a number of his then colleagues in New Zealand, and elsewhere, be arrested, while also seizing most of the company’s assets.

All sorts of legal wrangling has since taken place around the MegaUpload case, with the US still to successfully extradite Dotcom et al to face criminal copyright and other charges in the American courts. One strand of that legal wrangling has been Dotcom’s efforts to reclaim some or all of the assets and funds seized back in 2012.

Last year the US Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeal backed a lower court ruling saying that Dotcom should not be reconnected to those assets, mainly because they consider the former MegaUpload chief a fugitive. But Dotcom’s lawyer hit back at that argument, saying that his client wasn’t a ‘fugitive’, but was exercising his legal right to fight extradition to the US.

Speaking to Reuters at the time, lawyer Ira Rothken said: “This opinion has the effect of eviscerating Kim Dotcom’s treaty rights by saying if you lawfully oppose extradition in New Zealand, the US will still call you a fugitive and take all of your assets. We think it’s American imperialism at its best, and we’re hoping the Supreme Court or the larger court circuit will see it for what it is, and reverse it”.

In their new petition to the US Supreme Court, filed last week, Team MegaUpload argue that the decision to stop Dotcom et al from reclaiming their assets because of so called “fugitive disentitlement” sets a dangerous precedent, in that it allows American authorities to seize the assets of foreign nationals on the basis of as yet unproven claims.

The legal filing says: “If left undisturbed, the Fourth Circuit’s decision enables the government to obtain civil forfeiture of every penny of a foreign citizen’s foreign assets based on unproven allegations of the most novel, dubious United States crimes”.

It goes on: “The government can do so without affording a foreign defendant any opportunity to challenge in court whether the foreign assets are traceable to criminal conduct, whether the government’s allegations are sufficient to establish the charged crime, or even whether the charged ‘crime’ is a crime at all”.

The lawyers conclude: “In sum, this case poses questions that have divided the lower courts and carry important implications for federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, statutory interpretation, civil procedure, and international relations”.

It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court takes the case and, if so, how it rules.

The High Court in New Zealand has rejected an attempt by MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom to stop his extradition to the US to face charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering. Though the man himself claims that the specifics of the ruling actually help his case, which still has further stages of appeal to go through before Dotcom can actually be forced into an American courtroom.

As much previously reported, the US government has being trying to extradite Dotcom and three of his former colleagues ever since it shut down MegaUpload on copyright grounds in 2012. Those extradition attempts have been caught up in a flurry of technicalities, but in December 2015 the New Zealand courts finally said Dotcom et al could be extradited to America. The four men then appealed, and represented their arguments – and a whole load more technicalities – last September.

The judge considering the case, Murray Gilbert, revealed his latest judgement earlier today, concluding that there were indeed grounds to extradite Dotcom under New Zealand’s extradition treaty with the US. However, Gilbert specifically ruled that those grounds were not based on the allegations of copyright infringement made against the former MegaUpload execs, but because of the accompanying claims of fraud.

That clarification was welcomed by Dotcom – who will appeal the ruling – because he says it confirms his side’s argument from the off, ie that copyright infringement alone was not sufficient to extradite the MegaUpload team to the US. Though, while the original arrest warrant issued against Dotcom did cite copyright crimes, at both first instance and on appeal the prosecution focused much of its efforts on arguing that the copyright infringement undertaken by MegaUpload was sufficient to constitute fraud.

It’s not unknown for prosecutors targeting copyright infringers to push for a conviction for fraud, sometimes to circumvent ambiguities in copyright law regarding the defendant’s liabilities, and sometimes because the law usually provides tougher sentencing for fraud compared to infringement. Though a charge of conspiracy to defraud requires the prosecution to present evidence beyond the mere distribution of copyright material without licence, and at the next stage of appeal Dotcom’s people are sure to argue that insufficient evidence has been supplied in this case.

Either way, Dotcom told the New Zealand Herald that this ruling constituted a “major victory” for his side, despite the extradition order still standing. “The major part of this litigation has been won by this judgment – that copyright is not extraditable”, he told the newspaper. “They [the authorities in New Zealand] destroyed my family, destroyed my business, spied on me and raided my home and they did all of this on a civil copyright case. We have won. We have won the major legal argument. This is the last five years of my life and it’s an embarrassment for New Zealand”.

He continued: “Now they’re trying through the back door to say this was a fraud case. I’m confident going with this judgment to the Court Of Appeal”.

Those further stages of appeal will likely take at least another two years to go through the motions, something Dotcom himself noted when he added: “We’ll be looking at a seven year total timeframe before there is a final resolution on this matter. I am now more confident than ever that we will prevail”.

If the whole matter ever does get to an American court, the US government’s case will likely focus more on copyright matters than the fraud allegations, which would make it an important trial for the music and movie industries, as Dotcom et al will plead safe harbours. That trial, therefore, would be another high profile test of the safe harbour protections provided to technology companies under US copyright law.

Lawyers for the men who led the always controversial file-transfer platform MegaUpload have presented closing arguments as part of their appeal against the previous court ruling that said the former execs should be extradited to the US to face charges of criminal copyright infringement and money laundering.

As much previously reported, the US has been trying to extradite the former MegaUpload chiefs, including founder Kim Dotcom, ever since it shut down the file-transfer business in 2012 on the grounds that the website profited from rampant copyright infringement. After many delays, the extradition hearing got under way last year, with a judge ultimately finding in the US government’s favour. But Dotcom et al appealed.

Most of the arguments presented by both sides during the appeal hearing were pretty familiar. On Dotcom’s side, legal reps continue to argue that there is not enough evidence to show that their client conspired to commit a crime, and therefore there is not a strong enough case to allow extradition under the rules of the US/New Zealand extradition treaty.

Although the main arguments from both sides have now been presented, according to Channel NewsAsia, there are still some technicalities to be addressed, meaning a ruling is likely to be a few weeks away yet. Meanwhile, it is expected that a further appeal will occur, whichever sides wins this stage.

As also previously reported, the appeal hearing was live streamed on YouTube at the request of the Dotcom side, though it seems that the mainly dull proceedings were something of a turn-off for many of the people who did tune in; appeal hearings generally being less entertaining. According to YouTube, the final afternoon’s session had about 100 viewers.

Elsewhere in MegaUpload news, another appeal of sorts. Legal reps for Dotcom have petitioned the Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals in the US in a bid to try to secure a rehearing in relation to their client’s bid to regain assets seized by the US government during the aforementioned MegaUpload shutdown in 2012.

As previously reported, last month the Fourth Circuit backed a lower court ruling saying that Dotcom should not be reconnected to those assets, mainly because they consider the former MegaUpload chief a fugitive. The lawyers argue that there should be a rehearing on the basis that the three judge Fourth Circuit ruling was not unanimous, the ruling arguably conflicts with past precedents, and because of the wider significance of the case.

It remains to be seen if a rehearing is indeed granted, though other appeal routes are still open to Dotcom, who has previously pledged to take the case all the way to the US Supreme Court if necessary.

This content is for premium subscribers only.

Premium subscribers can unlock this page with the current passcode.

The current passcode is contained in the most recent CMU Premium email, which is sent out every Friday. New subscribers will find the passcode in the ‘Welcome’ PDF provided when they bought their subscription.

Just enter the passcode below (all caps).

Premium CMU subscribers get access to the weekly CMU Digest, regular reports from CMU Trends and discounts on CMU Insights seminars and masterclasses.

It costs just £5 a month – click on the ‘PREMIUM’ button in the banner above (or in the drop down menu on mobile) to sign up

Kim Dotcom’s latest attempt to fight extradition to the US to face charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement will be livestreamed on YouTube, so that’s a thing. Lawyers for Dotcom had argued that the case should be beamed live to the world, but reps for the US government objected.

As much previously reported, Dotcom has been fighting extradition from New Zealand to the US ever since American authorities shut down his MegaUpload business in early 2012 on copyright grounds. A New Zealand court finally considered the extradition request late last year, ultimately siding with the Americans, though Dotcom et al are now appealing.

Legal reps for Dotcom said that the appeal should be streamed because, you know, the bloody media and all that, who knows what they’ll say, so letting people watch the hearing on the YouTubes will restore balance and ensure public scrutiny. The American authorities argued that the streams could prejudice the actual criminal trial if and when it happens back in the US, in particular making it harder to select an impartial jury.

But as the appeal hearing got underway yesterday, the judge overseeing the case – Murray Gilbert – green lighted the livestream, and on Dotcom’s preferred platform of YouTube too. Though there are conditions.

First, guidelines for broadcasting court sessions in New Zealand say that there should be a ten minute delay, and for this case it will be 20 minutes, so that specific things can be blocked from the public screening if necessary. Commenting will also be turned off and the footage will not be able to stay on YouTube long-term.

Though, of course, viewers will be able to comment on the livestream elsewhere if they so wish and, somewhat ironically, there is nothing to stop pesky users from ripping the stream and plonking that content in publicly accessible digital lockers of the MegaUpload model, and then sharing that content beyond the trial period itself.

In their opening remarks yesterday, judges for the MegaUpload side – actually repping former Dotcom colleagues Mathias Ortmann and Bram van der Kolk – said that the judge in the original extradition hearing had shown “extraordinary disinterest” in their arguments.

They then listed some familiar grievances, regarding the process US and New Zealand authorities went through in originally investigating and arresting the former MegaUpload management, and over the fact the defendants had not been allowed to use funds seized from their former business to hire experts in US law as part of their defence in the New Zealand courts.

The appeal is expected to take at least six weeks, and it’s thought that star attraction Dotcom won’t take to the stand himself until next week. By which time the YouTube livestream should be fully functioning. What a time to be alive!

This content is for premium subscribers only.

Premium subscribers can unlock this page with the current passcode.

The current passcode is contained in the most recent CMU Premium email, which is sent out every Friday. New subscribers will find the passcode in the ‘Welcome’ PDF provided when they bought their subscription.

Just enter the passcode below (all caps).

Premium CMU subscribers get access to the weekly CMU Digest, regular reports from CMU Trends and discounts on CMU Insights seminars and masterclasses.

It costs just £5 a month – click on the ‘PREMIUM’ button in the banner above (or in the drop down menu on mobile) to sign up

An American appeals court has denied Kim Dotcom’s latest attempt to regain assets seized by the US government during the takedown of MegaUpload in 2012. The Fourth Circuit Court Of Appeals said that, while Dotcom remains in New Zealand fighting extradition to the US, as far as they are concerned his status is that of a fugitive, and he is therefore not entitled to the return of his funds.

Millions of dollars were seized in multiple territories as MegaUpload was shut down and Dotcom and some of his former colleagues were arrested in New Zealand over allegations of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement. Since then, Dotcom and his lawyers have successfully sought to unfreeze some of those funds to cover his living and legal costs, though the courts are still overseeing all the remaining monies linked to the former MegaUpload business.

On Friday, a panel of three judges voted two to one to leave Dotcom’s assets under the control of the US government. Dotcom’s lawyer Ira Rothken said that they would now fight the decision in a higher court, arguing that by branding his client a fugitive, the US is ignoring his legal right to fight extradition.

“This opinion has the effect of eviscerating Kim Dotcom’s treaty rights by saying if you lawfully oppose extradition in New Zealand, the US will still call you a fugitive and take all of your assets”, Rothken told Reuters yesterday.

Speaking to RNZ, he added: “By basically saying ‘hey, we’re going to call that fugitive disentitlement, we’re going to take away your ability to have funds to defend yourself’, we think that’s too much. We think it’s American imperialism at its best, and we’re hoping the Supreme Court or the larger Court circuit will see it for what it is, and reverse it”.

Dotcom himself reacted angrily to the news, tweeting: “I’m a ‘fugitive’ coz I use my treaty rights to defend against extradition and they take my assets without trial? 1938? Did they think they can separate me from my kids without a fight? I fight corrupt US empire clowns all day, every day. Not even tired”.

As previously reported, 20th Century Fox recently claimed that Dotcom had breached a court order by receiving a $220,000 loan from a legal firm representing him on behalf of a trust for his children. Those reps contested that the loan was a new asset not covered by the existing asset freezing order.

Meanwhile, Dotcom’s next appeal hearing against his extradition is due to begin at the end of this month.

Even if you can’t fight the charges made against you by the American authorities, perhaps you can put off your extradition until the early 2040s, by which time the US – aka Trumptonia – will be a barren wasteland where the feral beasts of men who roam what’s left of that once great nation won’t be so bothered about bringing former copyright infringers to justice.

Especially those who live in Europe, who will still be contaminated from the nuclear winter, and what judge wants a radioactive defendant in their courtroom? None, that’s what. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what you call a legal strategy. I should give up this words lark and put my law degree to proper use.

Anyway, Rothken – who has advised Dotcom in his long running legal battle with the US authorities over his former business MegaUpload – reckons that Vaulin, arrested last week, can mount a decent defence against the charges filed against him over KickassTorrents. And to that effect the lawyer is trying to have the Ukranian released from the Warsaw jail where he’s been resided since his arrest in a bid to start work on that defence.

As previously noted, there are some parallels between the MegaUpload and KAT cases, in that both are criminal actions being pursued by the US government that require the accused to be extradited to the States. And both Dotcom and Vaulin are accused of copyright crimes and money laundering.

Though there are some significant differences too, because MegaUpload was a file-transfer and video-upload site, whereas KAT was a file-sharing hub. The big difference is that MegaUpload actually hosted unlicensed music and movie files on its servers, whereas KAT simply provided links to unlicensed content elsewhere on the net. Dotcom, if his case ever gets to the US courts, will rely heavily on the always contentious safe harbours of American copyright law. Vaulin’s defence, however, would likely rely on other legal arguments.

As a string of successful lawsuits against file-sharing sites have proven, saying “but we don’t host any of the infringing files” isn’t a valid defence, because most copyright systems recognise that helping others to infringe can in itself constitute infringement – something variously called contributory, secondary or authorising infringement, depending on the jurisdiction. This was the defence unsuccessfully used in the main case against The Pirate Bay, which is probably the closest comparable case to that now involving Vaulin

The founders and funder of the Bay were found liable for contributory infringement in a combined criminal and civil case, and all spent time in prison (or under house arrest in the funder’s case) as a result. But that all happened under Swedish law. And Rothkin reckons that, while file-sharing sites can and have been held liable for contributory infringement, or similar, in civil cases in the US, there isn’t a case under the criminal law. And the KAT man is accused of criminal copyright infringement.

The lawyer told Torrentfreak: “We believe the US criminal complaint lacks merit. Torrent sites and trackers are devoid of any content files. If any infringement occurs it happens offsite and leaves KickassTorrents behind. This type of copyright theory is known as secondary copyright infringement and there is no United States criminal statute for secondary copyright infringement – that type of theory is at most a civil liability issue”.

Rothkin will work with Polish legal reps to try and get Vaulin out on bail and to then fight the US authorities’ bid to extradite the alleged KAT chief. Attempts to extradite Dotcom from New Zealand to the US are ongoing four and half years after he was first arrested, and even though the NZ courts approved the extradition late last year, the former MegaUpload boss is now appealing that ruling, while getting busy setting up MegaUpload v2.

Movie studio Twentieth Century Fox has accused former MegaUpload chief Kim Dotcom of breaching a court order relating to the funds frozen when his former business was shut down by the US authorities in 2012.

Millions of dollars were seized in multiple territories as MegaUpload was shut down and Dotcom and some of his former colleagues were arrested in New Zealand over allegations of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement.

Since then, Dotcom and his lawyers have successfully sought to unfreeze some of those funds to cover his living and legal costs, though the courts are still overseeing all the remaining monies linked to the former MegaUpload business.

The big music and movie companies take a particular interest in any legal wranglings around the seized funds because they are suing Dotcom et al for copyright infringement, and they want there to be a big pile of cash ready and waiting should they prevail in that litigation and be awarded mega-bucks damages by the courts.

And to that end, lawyer Matt Sumpter, representing the Fox film company, recently told the New Zealand courts that a recent financial transaction involving Dotcom was in violation of the order freezing his assets. The transaction at the heart of the complaint was a $220,000 loan Dotcom had taken from his lawyers on behalf of a trust for his children.

According to RNS, Sumpter says the loan basically amounts to contempt of court, and he wants the judge to “remind Mr Dotcom about his obligations”. But Dotcom’s own lawyer disputes the Fox man’s claims, arguing that the loan “was a new asset, not covered by the original freezing order”.

The latest legal skirmish between Hollywood and the MegaUpload man comes ahead of the latter’s appeal against a court decision late last year which said that the American authorities could extradite Dotcom et al to face those aforementioned charges in a US courtroom. A hearing to consider that appeal is scheduled for next month.

While the world still waits for Kim Dotcom’s big day in the American courts – which may or may not happen – to face charges of copyright infringement, money laundering and racketeering in relation to his former business MegaUpload, there’s been an interesting ruling in Italy in relation to that company’s MegaVideo enterprise.

Whereas MegaUpload was a file-transfer platform, MegaVideo was more like YouTube, though both parts of the business had a subscription option that enabled users to access more content. Like YouTube, MegaVideo hosted lots of videos uploaded without the approval of rights owners but – while Dotcom continues to insist his company operated a takedown system for said rights owners – MegaVideo didn’t develop the kinds of rights management tools and/or seek the kinds of licensing deals achieved by its Google-owned rival.

Despite the entire MegaUpload business being shut down by the US authorities in 2012, a copyright case being pursed by Italian TV firm RTI against the company has continued to go through the motions, and has now finally reached a judgement. RTI accused MegaVideo of infringing its copyrights by failing to remove its content after the broadcaster requested a takedown.

Team Mega didn’t actively defend the case, the company being technically defunct with its former assets frozen. Though the court did consider a possible argument that could be put against RTI’s claim: that the broadcaster simply provided a list of its programmes that were appearing on MegaVideo, rather than specific URLs where its content was being streamed without licence. Most user-upload platforms insist that rights owners must provide specific URLs when requesting that allegedly copyright infringing content be removed.

This leads us back to the good old safe harbours debate, which will be at the heart of the US case against Dotcom et al if it ever actually reaches an American courtroom. Under the safe harbour rules, user-upload sites are protected from liability when users upload infringing material providing they operate a takedown system. But what form does that takedown system need to take?

The Italian court in the RTI case decided that specific URLs were not required, and information about programme names was sufficient. They also noted that content ripped off RTI channels and then uploaded to sites like MegaVideo usually had the broadcaster’s logo in the corner.

That makes this long-overdue ruling against a dead company all the more interesting, as it steps up the obligations of safe harbour dwelling websites, in Italy at least. Which is something Dotcom’s highest profile legal rep, Ira Rothken, criticises about the judgement in an interview with Torrentfreak.

He says: “The Rome court apparently ruled on this MegaVideo case in a default context, unknown to us, and the result is unworkable case law on ISP secondary copyright liability … it was not explained why the copyright owners couldn’t provide URLs in the takedown notices and no burden analysis based on competent evidence was done by the court”.

The legal man adds that the ruling in Rome is not in line with precedent in the US – where the really big MegaUpload case will take place, extradition appeal depending. And he argues that there is a case for saying Italian judges are in conflict with European law too, concluding that “this type of secondary infringement rule, if allowed to stand, arguably violates EU freedom of expression and copyright-related treaties, amongst other things”.

Kim Dotcom plans to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the US government shutting down his MegaUpload business by, well, relaunching his MegaUpload business. Say what you like about this man, he certainly knows how to wind up American prosecutors and entertainment industry execs in style.

MegaUpload was shut down by the feds in 2012 on the grounds that it was a business fuelled by rampant copyright infringement. Senior execs at the company were then accused of money laundering, racketeering and various copyright crimes, with the US immediately instigating what turned out to be very slow moving efforts to extradite Dotcom and some of his former colleagues from their current home of New Zealand to face those charges in an American court.

Late last year a judge in New Zealand finally ruled that Dotcom et al could indeed be extradited to the US, though that ruling is now being appealed. Which is how – four and half years after the dramatic MegaUpload shutdown – Dotcom remains free to pursue other entrepreneurial (and, at one point, political) ventures in his adopted home country.

If Dotcom setting up a new file-transfer platform like MegaUpload sounds familiar, that’s because he’s already done it in the form of Mega, which went live in 2013. Though Dotcom subsequently distanced himself from that business, initially seemingly to reduce the negative impact his ongoing legal woes were having on the start-up, but later because of a falling out with the company, which he has openly criticised in more recent times.

The next file-transfer venture is set to be called MegaUpload 2.0, and that’s not the only more direct link it will have to Dotcom’s former business. He has now said that he has the original MegaUpload user database and that everyone in it will get an automatic account on the new platform with any old premium privileges reinstated. Old users should get an email to that effect at some point, he added on Twitter last week.

He then tweeted earlier today that: “I’ll be the first tech billionaire who got indicted, lost everything and created another billion $ tech company while on bail”.

Which, while possibly an ambitious target, is certainly an ambition that will seriously annoy the American government, and the music and movie companies, who believe the original MegaUpload was built on the back of massive copyright infringement, something Dotcom, of course, has always denied. Whether that’s an allegation that will be immediately transferred over to the v2 MegaUpload business remains to be seen.

Other notable announcements and developments today…

• MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom’s appeal against his extradition to the US, where he faces charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement, won’t kick off until 29 Aug. The US government had been pushing for the appeal to be fast-tracked, hoping that Dotcom will lose and it can get him into an American courtroom ASAP.

• BMG has acquired the publishing catalogues of French songwriter Loulou Gasté from his widow, singer and actress Line Renaud. “All my trust goes to BMG France and BMG Global so that the work of my husband will never be forgotten”, says Renaud. No pressure.

• Polydor Records President Ferdy Unger-Hamilton is leaving the Universal label, with Hits Daily Double reckoning he’s set to launch a new joint venture label with Sony Music. And who wouldn’t want to launch a new joint venture label with Sony Music? Can I have a new joint venture label with Sony Music? I’d call it THRILLED Records.

• Universal Music Australia has launched one of those creative agencies that delivers “entertainment-led marketing partnerships and talent-led solutions”. It’s a joint venture with PR company One Green Bean, that is majority owned by Havas, which has a shareholder in common with Universal owner Vivendi: Vincent Bollore. Universal France has a joint venture with another Havas firm, and Universal UK’s Global often works with Havas agency Cake.

• Nisennenmondai will release a new album, ‘#N/A’, on 1 Apr. It’s produced by Adrian Sherwood, whose influence is strong enough that the title actually stands for ‘Nisennenmondai/Adrian Sherwood’. Here’s a track called ‘#3’.

Hey, look everyone, we made it all the way to the end of 2015, which means we just have one more month worth of popular articles to look at before moving on to 2016.

The most-read article on the CMU website in December 2015 was one with the headline ‘US Copyright Board could rule on Pandora royalties today’. Spoiler alert: It didn’t. The ruling actually came in the middle of the next week. But it could have happened the previous Friday, and I think that’s the important take away here.

Coming after that decision in the New Zealand courts last week that Dotcom and his former colleagues can be extradited to the US – where they face criminal charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement in relation to their former business. The festive post was a summary of the one time MegaUpload chief’s many and various grievances with the US government.

Most of those grievances we already knew. The severity of the raid against him and his former colleagues as the US swooped onto MegaUpload and its management just under four years ago. And the overnight shutdown of his company and the loss of access to – and, in some cases, subsequent deleting of – data that is important to both Dotcom’s defence and the former customers whose legit files were lost.

A big chunk of the address then repeats Dotcom’s disagreements with the US authorities on points of law – ie whether or not MegaUpload was liable for the rampant infringement of its customers – before calling out prosecutors in America and New Zealand (although he mainly blames the Americans) for, he reckons, dodgy dealings in building and pursuing a case against him.

There’s also time to repeat the claim that the US government has been preventing him from getting a fair hearing in court by insisting seized MegaUpload funds that have been returned to pay Dotcom’s legal fees cannot be used to hire American legal expertise during the extradition process. Dotcom’s reps tried on numerous occasions – unsuccessfully – to halt the extradition proceedings on those grounds.

As for why the US government might be making false claims, employing bad process and relying on non-existent law to drive Dotcom et al out of business, well, it’s all Hollywood’s fault, apparently. “If you have read all of the above you may wonder why the US government is acting so badly”, he concludes. “This case is a political thriller authored and produced by the Motion Picture Association Of America and its ‘senator for hire’ Chris Dodd. His lobbying, calling in favours and close relationships within the White House made this unprecedented abuse of power possible”.

Although it was published on Christmas day, Dotcom clearly penned the piece before last week’s extradition ruling, as he ends his address with the resolution of that particular battle pending. Of course, despite last week’s judgement, the extradition stage of this long saga continues because Dotcom now intends to appeal. Indeed, just before Christmas he said the judgement against him was so weak, and therefore so easy to appeal, that it was “a Christmas gift in disguise”.

It remains to be seen if that confidence is justified. Although MegaUpload, and the piracy it enabled, all seems to have happened so long ago now, if this case ever gets to a US court it will be a key test of the safe harbours in US copyright law that have proven so controversial in music industry circles this last year. But if there is one thing we’ve learned about the MegaUpload case so far, it’s that things are unlikely to happen quickly. Dotcom could well be writing another Christmas address while still sitting in limbo this time next year.

Yes, it’s that time again to look through the most-read news stories of the last month on the CMU website. This time for the month of November 2015. That being the month that’s just gone. Honestly, anyone would think I was trying to bulk this introduction out with unnecessary words.

Anyway, top of the list this month was the news that Radiohead are suing their former label Parlophone and the subsequent debate around the case. The matter relates to deductions made from the band’s download income in 2008 and 2009, totalling £744,000. The money was taken to cover costs incurred by the label in 1991 and 1998.

The label argued that the deadline for the band to dispute such deductions as per their contract had passed. However, the band’s lawyers said that because the contract pre-dated the digital age, there had never been an agreement on what could be deducted from their digital income, and therefore no deadline to meet. Putting this to the High Court, a judge agreed to allow the case to proceed to trial.

Below that was the slightly less serious news that Justin Bieber walked off stage during a TV recording because fans were grabbing at him while he was trying to clear up some water.

Hey America, you “dirty ugly bully”, how you doing this morning? Ready for giving some thanks tomorrow? Good.

Meanwhile, in New Zealand, the MegaUpload extradition hearing has finally reached its conclusion, and the fate of four of the men who used to run the often controversial file-transfer platform are now in the hands of a judge called Nevin Dawson.

The extradition proceedings, already many times postponed since the US authorities shut down MegaUpload in early 2012, ended up dragging on for ten weeks. Mainly because at every turn defence lawyers argued that the whole case should be postponed once again, because their clients were being starved of funds by the prosecution, they claimed, preventing them from hiring the expert legal counsel required to ensure a fair trial.

However, while the hearing dragged, it was never postponed, and finally this week each side delivered their closing arguments. As previously reported, the prosecution spoke on Monday, again stressing that MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom and his colleagues built a lucrative business empire by deliberately encouraging and enabling others to infringe copyright.

The level of infringement that was enabled – the prosecution argued – constituted fraud against the copyright industries. So much so, Dotcom’s own colleagues had themselves referred to the company’s activities as being fraudulent. This is a key point, because copyright infringement alone – even criminal infringement – is not covered by the extradition treaty between the US and New Zealand, so prosecutors need to show that Dotcom et al’s activities amounted to fraud, which is covered.

In its wrap up, the defence disputed all and any allegations that its clients’ business was in any way fraudulent. As for the allegations of copyright infringement, MegaUpload was no different to any other file storage and transfer platform, they argued; though a specific comparison with Dropbox was made, because some other file-transfer set ups – like the also now defunct RapidShare – were likewise accused of contributory infringement.

MegaUpload removed infringing content if made aware of it, in line with US law, the defendants again argued. “Not only did MegaUpload achieve 99.999% takedown compliance”, said Dotcom himself on Twitter, as the extradition hearing reached its conclusion, “numerous emails from major content owners thanked us for our compliance”.

The former MegaUpload chief added that his business had been entirely legitimate, but was nevertheless shot down by “an aggressive and malicious US government” set on “doing Hollywood’s bidding. My defence team has shown how utterly unreliable, malicious and unethical the US case against me is” he added. “They have exposed a dirty ugly bully”.

Dawson will now consider both sides’ arguments before deciding whether Dotcom and co should indeed be extradited to the US to face charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement. Though, whatever he decides, an appeal will almost certainly follow.

In the meantime, noting that Dawson granted Dotcom bail against the wishes of the US authorities all the way back in 2012, the MegaUpload founder tweeted: “My life is in the hands of Judge Nevin Dawson. He was the judge who granted me bail. There’s hope!”

The prosecution today presented its closing arguments in the long running MegaUpload extradition hearing in New Zealand, with defence lawyers having yet one more attempt at halting the proceedings.

As much previously reported, the US government wants to extradite MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom and three of his former colleagues at the defunct file-transfer company to face charges of money laundering, racketeering and rampant copyright infringement.

The defendants’ lawyers have spent much of the already many times delayed extradition hearing arguing that the whole matter should be further postponed, because, they say, restrictions on how their clients can spend former MegaUpload funds are depriving Dotcom et al from getting a fair hearing.

That argument was presented before the court case began, on the first day, and when it got to the case for the defence, though the judge overseeing the proceedings, Nevin Dawson, has refused to postpone matters any further at every turn.

If it ever gets to court in the US, the MegaUpload case will in no small part revolve around those pesky safe harbours in copyright law, which say that tech firms cannot be held liable for infringement that occurs on their networks providing they have a content takedown system in place for copyright owners.

During the extradition hearing, defence lawyers argued that MegaUpload fulfilled its obligations to secure safe harbour protection in both the US and New Zealand, which means that if it could be held liable for infringement now, that would set a dangerous precedent for all tech players, including YouTube, Facebook and Twitter.

Which may or may not be true, though at this stage the key issue is not whether Dotcom et al are actually liable for the infringement of their old customers, but whether [a] the US government has a sufficient case against the MegaUpload men to justify extradition and [b] whether the crimes they are accused of are covered by the extradition treaty between New Zealand and the US.

That latter point is perhaps most important, because straight copyright infringement is not covered. But, says the prosecution, the level of infringement that Dotcom and co encouraged and enabled constitutes “fraud”, which is covered. Why then, countered the defence, had American prosecutors charged their clients with infringement and not fraud.

Summing up, Christine Gordon, the New Zealand Crown lawyer representing the US, said the defendants had “mired” the extradition process in irrelevant and complex legal arguments by attempting to “conduct their trial defence through the extradition process”.

She then said that lawmakers in New Zealand surely intended their copyright laws to cover the actions of Dotcom and his colleagues, because “it cannot be right the biggest infringers go free, while a man who peddles CDs out of his boot at a local market gets a harsh sentence”.

According to 3 News, on the fraud point, Gordon again argued that the defendants had clearly defrauded copyright owners, before claiming that “even the respondents used that word in referring to their activities”. She then pulled out the records of more conversations between the defendants, from back when they were running their old business, in which one of the accused, Mathias Ortmann, indeed referred to his company’s actions as “fraud”.

It was Gordon’s insertion of new evidence at this stage that prompted defence lawyers to again call for a postponement of the hearing. After the Mega attorneys dubbed the late delivery of new evidence as an “ambush”, judge Dawson said he’d consider postponing proceedings just long enough for those lawyers to review the new materials.

The MegaUpload extradition hearing continues to go through the motions in New Zealand, and while it was originally hoped the proceedings would be done within a month, the whole thing enters its ninth week on Monday.

As much previously reported, the US authorities are trying to extradite MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom, and three of his former colleagues, to face criminal charges of money laundering, racketeering and copyright infringement in relation to their old business.

Legal reps for the former MegaUpload chiefs repeatedly argued that the extradition hearing should be postponed, so that the defendants could try to get access to more of the funds seized from their company when it was shut down by the feds in 2012, mainly to pay US legal experts to testify on their behalf.

The judge hearing the case repeatedly refused that request, so that Team Mega actually had to begin arguing against the reasons the US – via New Zealand prosecutors – had given for extraditing Dotcom et al to America. Copyright infringement isn’t covered by the US/New Zealand extradition treaty, the defence lawyers then said, prosecutors had misrepresented their client’s previous conversations, and anyway, “safe harbours”.

This week Ron Mansfield, representing Dotcom, also accused the prosecution of presenting irrelevant evidence at start of the case simply to prejudice the public against his client.

Among the various transcriptions of conversations between the former MegaUpload management, which were presented by Crown prosecutor Christine Gordon, was one in which Dotcom told one of his co-defendants that “Aussies” were “just as dumb as Kiwis”.

Gordon suggested that that remark was made during a conversation about Australian efforts to shut down MegaUpload. But, said Mansfield, that chat had actually been about Megapay, a venture that has nothing to do with the copyright case. It was only mentioned, Mansfield reckons, to embarrass Dotcom in his adopted home, where he previously had political ambitions.

According to the New Zealand Herald, Mansfield told the court: “This reference is entirely misleading. Rather, it was chosen by the United States for the media attention this would no doubt have. This choice proved to be correct given the media attention that followed, but its inclusion is entirely irrelevant, misleading, and unreliable. Its inclusion was designed to unfairly attract prejudice against Mr Dotcom”.

With that last complaint filed, Mansfield has now completed his defence for Dotcom, though lawyers for the other defendants still need to speak, so the case will run well into next week at least.

Legal reps for MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom will begin their defence on Monday in the extradition hearing that will decide whether he and three ex-colleagues should face criminal charges in relation to their former business in a US court.

If you’re getting a sense of déjà vu here, yes, that was meant to happen four weeks ago, after prosecutors wrapped up their arguments at the start of the month as to why Dotcom et al should be extradited. But the MegaUpload defence has so far spent its defence time arguing that no defence should be necessary. Though without success.

As previously reported, legal reps for Dotcom and friends say it is impossible for their clients to get a fair extradition hearing because, although US officials have unfrozen some of the cash seized when MegaUpload was shutdown by the authorities in 2012, the four men can only use that money within New Zealand. But, the lawyers say, US expertise needs to be hired to ensure their clients are properly represented.

Team Mega tried to have the already much-delayed extradition hearing postponed yet again last month based on those arguments. When they failed to get that postponement, they used the first day of the court hearing itself to again call for the proceedings to be delayed. And when that call went unanswered, they used their defence time to again insist their clients needed more cash to fight the case against them.

The judge overseeing the extradition proceedings, Nevin Dawson, has again refused to call off the current hearing, while also rejecting calls for an extended discussion on the defence’s arguments as to why the case should be postponed or dismissed. Which means, on Monday, Team Mega will actually have to respond to the arguments previously put forward by the prosecution, rather than just re-running the case for postponement.

Responding to that news, Dotcom himself said: “We will identify why the United States case is flawed [next week]. Sadly because of the limited focus of such an extradition hearing I can’t call the required and planned expert evidence to simply answer the incorrect factual assertions by the United States. The United States won’t permit [experts] to be paid”.

He went on: “The case will now turn on important legal argument. We outline this on Monday. However, when we enter the ring we do so to win. The obstacles the United States has put up to stop us from fighting back won’t stop us. We won’t be silenced by bullies! I wish you could all be at my court hearing on Monday. It’s going to be good”.

With so much time having been spent to date on the defence’s part on legal technicalities and finance issues, it will be interesting to finally hear their arguments against the actual charges Dotcom et al face, ie those of money laundering, racketeering and rampant copyright infringement. Safe harbours are sure to make an appearance.

MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom has taken to the stand in the ongoing extradition hearing taking place in New Zealand.

As much previously reported, the US authorities want to extradite Dotcom and his former colleagues at the long defunct file-transfer business to face allegations of money laundering, racketeering and rampant copyright infringement in relation to their former company.

While the prosecution in the extradition hearing, who kicked off the proceedings, ran through their various allegations and evidence against Dotcom et al, so far much of the defence’s time has been spent arguing that the extradition hearing itself should be postponed.

This has long been the defence’s standpoint, of course, and the hearing has been postponed many times before. The key argument from Team Mega – which was presented just before the extradition hearing began, on its first day, and again this week – is that the US authorities are refusing to allow the defendants to use funds seized by the feds when they shut down MegaUpload in 2012 to pay for American legal representation.

The prosecution argue that the case currently centres on New Zealand extradition law and not American copyright or criminal law, and that some of the seized funds have been provided to hire domestic legal representation. But that domestic legal representation insists it needs US legal expertise to ensure its clients have a fair trial.

Most of the questions answered by Dotcom in court yesterday focused on his financial situation and the lawyers he could and could not afford. He said that he’d sold his shares in the companies he set up post-MegaUpload – new file-transfer service Mega and direct-to-fan platform Baboom – and made about $20 million, and that this money had been used to fund legal costs and his family’s living expenses.

It was noted that, since the shutdown of MegaUpload, Dotcom had donated $4.8 million to the Internet Party in his failed attempt to wield political influence in his adopted home country. Could that not have been spent on US legal counsel, prosecutors asked. “If I had a crystal ball and I could see the future, in hindsight I could have done that”, Dotcom replied, according to the New Zealand Herald. “But at the time, for me, there was no reason to believe there wasn’t more unrestrained funds coming from my business ventures”.

Suggesting that Dotcom continued to lead a pretty expensive lifestyle, and perhaps some of those monies could have been set aside for legal costs too, the Mega man added: “If I wanted to be homeless and sack all my staff and kick my kids out of school I could’ve done that, yes”.

Earlier in the day Dotcom’s highest profile legal rep, US attorney Ira Rothken, said he would need about half a million to hire the people needed to assure his client a fair trial, and that if he got those funds it would take about six months to get together a solid defence.

The extradition hearing of Kim Dotcom and three other former managers of the long defunct but often controversial file-transfer service MegaUpload continues in New Zealand. The US wants to extradite the four men to its courts to face charges of racketeering, money laundering and rampant copyright infringement.

As previously reported, core to the case against the company that was forced offline in early 2012 is the allegation that it financially rewarded users who uploaded large quantities of copyright infringing material to its servers, because that content ensured a steady flow of traffic and therefore advertising and subscription income. It also meant, prosecutors allege, that as MegaUpload removed infringing material to comply with US copyright law, it knew that same content would be re-uploaded elsewhere on its networks.

That MegaUpload operated a takedown system for copyright owners, in line with US law, will be key to Dotcom et al’s defence. The prosecution want to show that MegaUpload only ever paid lip service to US copyright law, allowing users to continue uploading, and rewarding them for those uploads, even after multiple takedown notices had been issued against the uploading individual’s account.

Speaking on behalf of the US government in the extradition case, lawyer Christine Gordon said that one MegaUpload user was paid more than $50,000 for his uploading efforts between 2006 and 2011. Payments were made to the user, Gordon alleged, despite over 1200 takedown requests being issued against his account. No efforts were taken to restrict that user’s infringing activities, she added, and instead his server space was expanded to accommodate new unlicensed uploads.

However, the lawyer added, that particular uploader eventually fell out with MegaUpload, complaining that he wasn’t being paid enough for his ‘work’ for the company. According to the New Zealand Herald, Dotcom allegedly responded by writing in an email: “You and your friends are at most 1% of our traffic so please don’t overestimate your importance to us. We’re thankful of your support of MegaUpload in the past and I think we have been fair to you”.

MegaUpload’s rewards scheme was axed in June 2011, Gordon said, and Dotcom then became a critic of other file-transfer sites rewarding infringing uploaders, going as far as to report those rival services to Paypal. At that point the company described such payments as being “illegal” she claimed, “but Megaupload had done that [itself] for six years”.

More than three and half years after the US authorities took controversial file-transfer service MegaUpload offline, the extradition hearing of its founder Kim Dotcom and three other men involved in running the company finally kicked off yesterday after a multitude of delays. Indeed, had the Mega men’s attorneys got their way, the whole thing would have been postponed again this week, maybe even into next year.

That request for further postponement was denied, and so things have finally cranked into action as American prosecutors try to extradite Dotcom et al from their current home in New Zealand over to the States to face allegations of money laundering, racketeering and rampant copyright infringement in relation to their former enterprise.

“In the long prelude to this hearing much has been said about the novelty and technicality of the case”, said Christine Gordon, speaking for the US government in the Auckland District Court. But don’t be fooled, she went on, according to the New Zealand Herald. “When distractions are stripped away, it boils down to a simple scheme of fraud”, she said.

Embellishing a little, Gordon ran through the key allegations against the MegaUpload men, most of which first emerged shortly after the 2012 raid on their operations. Dotcom and his team made millions from advertisers and subscriptions, even though most of the traffic on their site was people accessing illegally uploaded content.

Not only that, but the firm allegedly had a scheme that rewarded users for driving traffic to the website, which basically meant uploading unlicensed music, movies and TV shows. But at the same time MegaUpload told copyright owners they were complying with obligations under US law to remove infringing material.

Acknowledging the much moaned about problem with the takedown systems that user-upload websites provide copyright owners – that users just re-upload the same content as soon as it’s been removed – Gordon said that, with the MegaUpload operation, you had “the incredible spectacle of processing takedown notices while at the same time paying many of those same repeat offenders”.

The former MegaUpload chiefs, of course, will claim that their operation – like those of other file-transfer platforms and video sharing sites like YouTube – was protected by the safe harbours of American copyright law, which say that, provided you do the takedown thing, you can’t be held liable for your users uploading infringing content. Even if your takedown system is pretty ropey, for the reasons Gordon explained.

The prosecution’s rep said that MegaUpload was different because it was rewarding the infringers who provided it with a steady stream of illegal files, ensuring taken down content wasn’t down for long. She also cited various correspondence between the accused which allegedly acknowledged the illegality of their operation, adding that the MegaUpload team “sometimes enjoyed the fact they were making money by breaking the law”.

Among the online comments Gordon cited was Dotcom urging his colleagues not to log chats because there is “too much shit in there” and “at some point a judge will be convinced about how evil we are – then we’re in trouble”.

Meanwhile one of his colleagues predicted the firm’s operations may be shut down, expressing surprise it hadn’t happened sooner, and adding: “If copyright holders would really know how big our business is they’d surely try to do something against it. They have no idea we are making millions in profit every month”.

So, plenty to be getting on with, though – of course – the purpose of this hearing is to decide whether the allegations against Dotcom et al are covered by the extradition treaty between New Zealand and the USA. The MegaUpload team are sure to provide plenty of arguments as to why they are not, before even tackling the allegations under US law.

So, the much delayed extradition hearing of the former management of MegaUpload got underway in New Zealand yesterday, the main development being that it didn’t instantly stop. Which it could have done.

As previously reported, lawyers for MegaUpload founder Kim Dotcom and his former colleagues at the long defunct file-transfer company have been busy trying to get their clients’ extradition case pushed back yet again.

In particular, they argue that, because the funds seized from MegaUpload when it was shut down in 2012, some of which have since been made available to help fund Dotcom et al’s defence, cannot be spent outside New Zealand, the defendants cannot hire experts in US copyright and criminal law.

This, the lawyers argue, will deny their clients a fair extradition hearing. But the prosecution argue that the extradition proceedings are a matter of New Zealand law, so the defendant’s lawyers should be more than capable of providing decent defence counsel.

Attempts earlier this month to halt the extradition hearing from kicking off this week failed, with judges saying that there wasn’t time to consider the lengthy arguments presented by both sides and that, anyway, it would be better to consider those arguments at the same time as the so called ‘eligibility hearing’, when the case for extraditing Dotcom et al itself is reviewed.

Which meant that, as that hearing got underway yesterday, most court time was focused on the so called stay applications filed by the defence in a bid to further delay the proceedings, and other discussions regarding the order in which different elements of the case should be considered.

Earlier today, judge Nevin Dawson ruled that the case should proceed as planned and that the next scheduled hearing on Thursday will therefore go ahead.

“The interlocutory applications now before the court” said the judge, according to NBR, “are such that they would best be heard and considered by the court during the eligibility hearing as they are largely contextual in nature. The court would be better placed to rule on these applications, having had the benefit of hearing the evidence of the eligibility hearing”.

So that’s fun. Meanwhile, Dotcom was allowed to bring his own chair into court for “ergonomic reasons” as the proceedings got underway, so that the controversial digital entrepreneur’s back is protected even his mind explodes amidst the tedious legal debate that is now expected to unfold as the extradition hearing goes through the motions.

The MegaUpload men are, of course, accused of racketeering, money laundering and rampant copyright infringement by the US authorities in relation to their former business, which was shut down by the feds over three years ago.

Much of the wrangling around the case to date has focused on legal technicalities, though there was some talk of the core copyright infringement allegations on Monday, with a reminder that the Mega men’s main defence is ‘safe harbours’. Meaning that, while the criminal case against Dotcom et al has moved along at a snail’s pace, the legal issue at the heart of the proceedings remain very timely for the music industry.